No one should expect that any doctriniare feminists will decry the atrocity chronicled here.
But a very loud "Where Were You When....?" should be waved in the face of anyone who attacks Sarah Palin for not subscribing to gynocentrism.
Every time.
from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080928/wl_afp/afghanistanunrestwomenpolice
Taliban kill Afghanistan's most high-profile policewoman
by Nasrat Shoaib
Sun Sep 28, 9:32 AM ET
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Sept 28, 2008 (AFP) - Taliban gunmen shot dead the most high profile female police officer in Afghanistan and wounded her teenaged son as she left home to go to work Sunday, officials and the militia said.
Attackers waiting outside the home of Malalai Kakar, head of the city of Kandahar's department of crimes against women, opened fire on her car as she left, Kandahar government spokesman Zalmay Ayoobi told AFP.
"Today between 7 am and 8 am when she was (in her car) outside her house and going to her job, some gunmen attacked," Ayoobi said.
"Malalai Kakar died in front of her house. Her son was wounded."
A doctor in the city's main hospital said Kakar, in her late 40s, had been shot in the head.
"She died on the spot and her son was badly injured and is in a coma," he said on condition of anonymity.
Her son, aged 15, had been driving Kakar to work, police said. The boy later came out of the coma but was in a serious condition.
A spokesman for the extremist Taliban movement, which targets government officials as part of a growing deadly insurgency, said that the assassins were from his group.
"We killed Malalai Kakar," spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi told AFP. "She was our target, and we successfully eliminated our target."
President Hamid Karzai condemned the attack, saying in a statement that it was an "act of cowardice" by the "enemies of the peace and welfare and reconstruction of Afghanistan."
The European Mission branch in Afghanistan said Kakar had been an "example" in her country and her murder was "particularly abhorrent."
The interior ministry praised her as a "brave hero and loyal to her profession."
Kakar, a mother of six, was regularly profiled in international media and was known for her courage in one of Afghanistan's most conservative provinces.
A captain in the police force and the most senior policewoman in Kandahar, she headed a team of about 10 women police officers and had reportedly received numerous death threats.
Kandahar is the birthplace of the extremist Taliban, who are mounting a growing insurgency that targets government officials.
During their 1996-2001 hold on power, the Taliban stopped women from working outside the home and even leaving home without a male relative and an all-covering burqa.
Kakar was the first woman to enrol in the Kandahar police force after the 2001 ouster of the Taliban and had been involved in investigating crimes against women and children, and conducting house searches.
The head of Kandahar province's women's affairs department was killed in a similar way two years ago.
And in June gunmen shot dead a female police officer in the western province of Herat in what was believed to be the first assassination of a female police officer in the war-torn country.
Bibi Hoor, 26, was on her way home when two armed men on motorbikes opened fire, killing her instantly. It was not clear who killed her or why.
Afghanistan's police force was destroyed by the time the Taliban were removed and is being rebuilt with international assistance. It numbers about 80,000 people, including a few hundred women.
About 750 policemen have been killed in the past six months, mostly in insurgency-linked violence sweeping the country.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Self-Explanatory
It's pretty clear to most readers of this blog that I'm voting for McCain.
From the domestic angle, I'm convinced that Obama and his minions are unabashed socialists. But that's another story.
I think the follwing article excerptexplains everything from the foreign-policy angle. I don't have to say anything else.
from:
Obama, McCain and Israel
Who really stands by Israel? Obama's, McCain's worldviews provide the answer
09.27.08, 14:13 / Israel Opinion
Yoram Ettinger
How would the worldview of Obama, McCain and their advisors shape US policy toward Israel?
1. According to McCain, World War III between Western democracies and Islamic terror/rogue regimes is already in process. According to Obama, the conflict is with a radical Islamic minority, which could be dealt with through diplomacy, foreign aid, cultural exchanges and a lower US military profile. Thus, McCain's worldview highlights – while Obama's worldview downplays – Israel's role as a strategic ally. McCain recognizes that US-Israel relations have been shaped by shared values, mutual threats and joint interests and not by frequent disagreements over the Arab-Israeli conflict.
2. According to Obama, the US needs to adopt the worldview of the Department of State bureaucracy (Israel's staunchest critic in Washington,) pacify the knee-jerk-anti-Israel-UN, move closer to the Peace-at-any-Price-Western Europe and appease the Third World, which blames the West and Israel for the predicament of the Third World and the Arabs. On the other hand, McCain contends that the US should persist – in defiance of global odds - in being the Free World's Pillar of Fire, ideologically and militarily.
3. According to Obama, Islamic terrorism constitutes a challenge for international law enforcement agencies and terrorists should be brought to justice. According to McCain, they are a military challenge and should be brought down to their knees. Obama's passive approach adrenalizes the veins of terrorists and intensifies Israel's predicament, while McCain's approach bolsters the US' and Israel's war on terrorism.
4. Obama and his advisors assume that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, erroneous US policy and US presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, McCain maintains that Islamic terrorism is driven by ideology, which considers US values (freedom of expression, religion, media, movement, market and Internet) and US power a most lethal threat that must be demolished. McCain's worldview supports Israel's battle against terrorism, demonstrating that the root cause of the Arab-Israel conflict is not the size – but the existence - of Israel.
5. Contrary to McCain, Obama is convinced – just like Tony Blair - that the Palestinian issue is the core cause of Middle East turbulence and anti-Western Islamic terrorism, and therefore requires a more assertive US involvement, exerting additional pressure on Israel. The intriguing assumption that a less-than-100 year old Palestinian issue is the root cause of 1,400 year old inter-Arab Middle East conflicts and Islamic terrorism, would deepen US involvement in Israel-Palestinians negotiations and transform the US into more of a neutral broker and less of a special ally of Israel, which would drive Israel into sweeping concessions.
Obama's worldview would be welcomed by supporters of an Israeli rollback to the 1949 ceasefire lines, including the repartitioning of Jerusalem and the opening of the "Pandora Refugees' Box." On the other hand, McCain's worldview adheres to the assumption that an Israeli retreat would convert the Jewish State from a power of deterrence to a punching bag, from a producer – to a consumer – of national security and from a strategic asset to a strategic burden in the most violent, volatile and treacherous region in the world.
From the domestic angle, I'm convinced that Obama and his minions are unabashed socialists. But that's another story.
I think the follwing article excerptexplains everything from the foreign-policy angle. I don't have to say anything else.
from:
Obama, McCain and Israel
Who really stands by Israel? Obama's, McCain's worldviews provide the answer
09.27.08, 14:13 / Israel Opinion
Yoram Ettinger
How would the worldview of Obama, McCain and their advisors shape US policy toward Israel?
1. According to McCain, World War III between Western democracies and Islamic terror/rogue regimes is already in process. According to Obama, the conflict is with a radical Islamic minority, which could be dealt with through diplomacy, foreign aid, cultural exchanges and a lower US military profile. Thus, McCain's worldview highlights – while Obama's worldview downplays – Israel's role as a strategic ally. McCain recognizes that US-Israel relations have been shaped by shared values, mutual threats and joint interests and not by frequent disagreements over the Arab-Israeli conflict.
2. According to Obama, the US needs to adopt the worldview of the Department of State bureaucracy (Israel's staunchest critic in Washington,) pacify the knee-jerk-anti-Israel-UN, move closer to the Peace-at-any-Price-Western Europe and appease the Third World, which blames the West and Israel for the predicament of the Third World and the Arabs. On the other hand, McCain contends that the US should persist – in defiance of global odds - in being the Free World's Pillar of Fire, ideologically and militarily.
3. According to Obama, Islamic terrorism constitutes a challenge for international law enforcement agencies and terrorists should be brought to justice. According to McCain, they are a military challenge and should be brought down to their knees. Obama's passive approach adrenalizes the veins of terrorists and intensifies Israel's predicament, while McCain's approach bolsters the US' and Israel's war on terrorism.
4. Obama and his advisors assume that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, erroneous US policy and US presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, McCain maintains that Islamic terrorism is driven by ideology, which considers US values (freedom of expression, religion, media, movement, market and Internet) and US power a most lethal threat that must be demolished. McCain's worldview supports Israel's battle against terrorism, demonstrating that the root cause of the Arab-Israel conflict is not the size – but the existence - of Israel.
5. Contrary to McCain, Obama is convinced – just like Tony Blair - that the Palestinian issue is the core cause of Middle East turbulence and anti-Western Islamic terrorism, and therefore requires a more assertive US involvement, exerting additional pressure on Israel. The intriguing assumption that a less-than-100 year old Palestinian issue is the root cause of 1,400 year old inter-Arab Middle East conflicts and Islamic terrorism, would deepen US involvement in Israel-Palestinians negotiations and transform the US into more of a neutral broker and less of a special ally of Israel, which would drive Israel into sweeping concessions.
Obama's worldview would be welcomed by supporters of an Israeli rollback to the 1949 ceasefire lines, including the repartitioning of Jerusalem and the opening of the "Pandora Refugees' Box." On the other hand, McCain's worldview adheres to the assumption that an Israeli retreat would convert the Jewish State from a power of deterrence to a punching bag, from a producer – to a consumer – of national security and from a strategic asset to a strategic burden in the most violent, volatile and treacherous region in the world.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Liberal Jews: Dual Loyalties?
Some friendly advice to our Obama-supporting friends: When your interests are aligned with those of Iran's President and Hitler-wannabe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it's time for some re-assessment of priorities… There is something very wrong with a party that insists on sitting down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions, but refuses to share a stage with the Republican Party candidate for Vice President of the United States of America.
From: Democrats give Ahmadinejad reason to smile
Abraham Katsman and Kory Bardash Sep. 24, 2008 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017379006&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Jewish American voters should consider carefully whether opposing a woman who opposes the abortion of fetuses is really more important than standing up for the right of already born Jews to continue to live and for the Jewish state to continue to exist. Because this week it came to that.
From:
Caroline Glick, Sep 22, 2008 www.jpost.com caroline@carolineglick.com
I agree with both of these sentiments. My only question is whether the writers of these articles are expressing any surprise along with their outrage, either toward Jewish Liberals (Glick) or Liberals in general (Katsman and Bardash).
Katsman, Bardash and Glick are missing some of the impeti behind this (relatively) new Zeitgeist.
Regarding Katsman and Bardash’s assessment, one must see that the Democrats are not going to make the same mistakes they did in 2000 or 2004, when they felt compelled to take the ostensible moral high road at the highest political cost: the presidency.
Regarding Glick’s piece, unfettered access to abortion is undoubtedly the closest thing the Democrat left has to a sacrament, and it dovetails quite nicely with the aforementioned political urgency, inasmuch as the Republican Party platform calls for a Constitutional amendment protecting the fetus, and the current Republican VP candidate is on the record opposing abortion in all circumstances including rape and incest.
For doctrinaire liberal Jews, and certainly for doctrinaire liberals, there is no conflict in either case. And, in a certain sense, we shouldn’t expect there to be; it really is a very small majority of Jews—and I include myself among them---whose Jewish identity is central enough to their political identity that it overrides other political sentiments. I say override because I am still not comfortable with many conservative tenets, nor am I convinced that conservatives are our friends any more than I am convinced liberals are our implacable enemies. (We just have to hope that our penchant for self-destruction stops somewhere short of liberals’.)
Irrespective of how the recission of Palin’s invitation to the rally was handled, and the liberal/Democratic pressures that went along with it, I’m not so sure it ultimately would have been a good idea to have only Palin there with no Democratic balance. (I’m not saying that this was anyone’s fault but the Democrats, but bear with me.) The last thing anyone needs right now is for anyone to think that fighting terror is a uniquely conservative concern. Especially in this political climate.
The 1980 election was the last time Jews abandoned the Democrats in a national election; the notion that Carter was hostile toward Israel (if not Jews) has seemed to bear that out. In 1992, however, the Democrats took advantage of Bush I's perceived hostility toward the Jewish state (if not Jews as well, again) and were amply rewarded. I registered as a Democrat in that election, the first election I voted in.
Regarding the question of whether it is better for Jews to be liberal or conservative. I would say a Jew should never be forced to make that choice. I would also cringe when Jews assert that one side of the political fence, or the other, is ipso facto compatible with Judaism, whichever version. I would assert with equal force that Jews who adopt one political doctrine, or the other, as a set of personal sacraments, should be aware of what they are getting themselves into.
I'm ceratinly not going to tell them.
From: Democrats give Ahmadinejad reason to smile
Abraham Katsman and Kory Bardash Sep. 24, 2008 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017379006&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Jewish American voters should consider carefully whether opposing a woman who opposes the abortion of fetuses is really more important than standing up for the right of already born Jews to continue to live and for the Jewish state to continue to exist. Because this week it came to that.
From:
Caroline Glick, Sep 22, 2008 www.jpost.com caroline@carolineglick.com
I agree with both of these sentiments. My only question is whether the writers of these articles are expressing any surprise along with their outrage, either toward Jewish Liberals (Glick) or Liberals in general (Katsman and Bardash).
Katsman, Bardash and Glick are missing some of the impeti behind this (relatively) new Zeitgeist.
Regarding Katsman and Bardash’s assessment, one must see that the Democrats are not going to make the same mistakes they did in 2000 or 2004, when they felt compelled to take the ostensible moral high road at the highest political cost: the presidency.
Regarding Glick’s piece, unfettered access to abortion is undoubtedly the closest thing the Democrat left has to a sacrament, and it dovetails quite nicely with the aforementioned political urgency, inasmuch as the Republican Party platform calls for a Constitutional amendment protecting the fetus, and the current Republican VP candidate is on the record opposing abortion in all circumstances including rape and incest.
For doctrinaire liberal Jews, and certainly for doctrinaire liberals, there is no conflict in either case. And, in a certain sense, we shouldn’t expect there to be; it really is a very small majority of Jews—and I include myself among them---whose Jewish identity is central enough to their political identity that it overrides other political sentiments. I say override because I am still not comfortable with many conservative tenets, nor am I convinced that conservatives are our friends any more than I am convinced liberals are our implacable enemies. (We just have to hope that our penchant for self-destruction stops somewhere short of liberals’.)
Irrespective of how the recission of Palin’s invitation to the rally was handled, and the liberal/Democratic pressures that went along with it, I’m not so sure it ultimately would have been a good idea to have only Palin there with no Democratic balance. (I’m not saying that this was anyone’s fault but the Democrats, but bear with me.) The last thing anyone needs right now is for anyone to think that fighting terror is a uniquely conservative concern. Especially in this political climate.
The 1980 election was the last time Jews abandoned the Democrats in a national election; the notion that Carter was hostile toward Israel (if not Jews) has seemed to bear that out. In 1992, however, the Democrats took advantage of Bush I's perceived hostility toward the Jewish state (if not Jews as well, again) and were amply rewarded. I registered as a Democrat in that election, the first election I voted in.
Regarding the question of whether it is better for Jews to be liberal or conservative. I would say a Jew should never be forced to make that choice. I would also cringe when Jews assert that one side of the political fence, or the other, is ipso facto compatible with Judaism, whichever version. I would assert with equal force that Jews who adopt one political doctrine, or the other, as a set of personal sacraments, should be aware of what they are getting themselves into.
I'm ceratinly not going to tell them.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Palintology vs. Obama-ssianism
Palin's presence on the ticket is such that many voters have been entranced by her enough to ignore the "scarier" elements of her political agenda. Even liberals--especially liberal women--are taken in (read the most recent Newsweek). That's why the hard Left and the Obamaniacs are so up in arms: she is not only a "heretic" (as an "anti-feminist" woman) who stands as a rebuke against everything they stand for (see: Eve Ensler, Matt Damon), but she has stolen Obama's charisma factor from right under him. Not to mention that she reopens the gender-race battle that Obama thought he'd already won.
Also, if Democrats are hoping that the current economic crisis will spell electroal success fro them the way it did in 1992, they aren;t paying attention. Only the hard Left has really been able to effectively tag McCain as W's inevitable third term; Wall Street's straits might elicit some stronger anti-corporate and anti-capitalist schadenfreude among the American public, but any real socialist-influenced advocacy of soaking the rich will be blunted by the message that there is nothing left to collect from.
I wrote off McCain way too early (in particular, in Republi-Karma). This is no longer Obama's election to lose.
Also, if Democrats are hoping that the current economic crisis will spell electroal success fro them the way it did in 1992, they aren;t paying attention. Only the hard Left has really been able to effectively tag McCain as W's inevitable third term; Wall Street's straits might elicit some stronger anti-corporate and anti-capitalist schadenfreude among the American public, but any real socialist-influenced advocacy of soaking the rich will be blunted by the message that there is nothing left to collect from.
I wrote off McCain way too early (in particular, in Republi-Karma). This is no longer Obama's election to lose.
Monday, September 15, 2008
United Nazi-ons
No, that's not a misprint. I insist on that being the correct spelling.
Dave Barry has opined that the raison d'etre of the UN is to "denounce Israel for everything, including sunspots."
I suppose I betray my ostensible knee-jerk pro-Israel sentiment when I counter-"bash" the UN.
Never mind that its "Committee on Human Rights" has seated, in no particular order, China, Syria, Lybia, Cuba, Sudan, and other shining beacons of liberty.
Never mind that its troops just sat on their hands during the Rwanda massacres in 1994.
Never mind that there were pictures of the UN commander in Srebrenica drinking with Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladic the night before Mladic's troops massacred at least 7,000 Bosnian Muslims.
Then there's the outright undisguised hostility towards Jews (let alone Israel), never more in display than during the Durban "Anti-Racism" Conferences in 2001.
But I don't need to burden you with the details. Pedro Sanjuan's The UN Gang and Dore Gold's Tower of Babble document all of the above in a more devastatingly effective manner than I ever could.
However, just when one thinks the UN can't outdo itself, comes this bit of news, courtesy of Michael Freund of the Jerusalem Post (forwarded from Naomi Ragen):
The war in Lebanon may have ended two years ago, but that hasn't stopped the UN from exploiting the conflict to besmirch Israel. In a move that harks back to the bad old days of UN hypocrisy and double standards vis-à-vis the Jewish state, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is reportedly set to demand that Israel reimburse Lebanon and Syria for damage caused during the war against Hizbullah.
Yes, you read that correctly. The UN wants Israel to pay for having the gall to defend itself.
I'm trying to weigh historical parallels. It seems Ban is trying to draw an analog between 2006 Israel and 1918 Germany (not too farfetched, as the Nazi analog has been bandied about by Israel's enemies almost since the birth of the Jewish state.)
I would venture a different parallel--Ban has taken a page from Hermann Goering's playbook. Here's a retelling of the aftermath of Kristallnacht:
Following Kristallnacht, on November 12, 1938, Hermann Goering called a meeting of the top Nazi leadership to assess the damage done during the night and place responsibility for it. Present at the meeting were Goering, Goebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, Walter Funk and other ranking Nazi officials. The intent of this meeting was two-fold: to make the Jews responsible for Kristallnacht and to use the events of the preceding days as a rationale for promulgating a series of antisemitic laws which would, in effect, remove Jews from the German economy. It was decided at the meeting that, since Jews were to blame for these events, they be held legally and financially responsible for the damages incurred by the pogrom. Accordingly, a "fine of 1 billion marks was levied for the slaying of Vom Rath, and 6 million marks paid by insurance companies for broken windows was to be given to the state coffers." (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kristallnacht.html)
Yes, it is spelled United Nazi-ons.
Dave Barry has opined that the raison d'etre of the UN is to "denounce Israel for everything, including sunspots."
I suppose I betray my ostensible knee-jerk pro-Israel sentiment when I counter-"bash" the UN.
Never mind that its "Committee on Human Rights" has seated, in no particular order, China, Syria, Lybia, Cuba, Sudan, and other shining beacons of liberty.
Never mind that its troops just sat on their hands during the Rwanda massacres in 1994.
Never mind that there were pictures of the UN commander in Srebrenica drinking with Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladic the night before Mladic's troops massacred at least 7,000 Bosnian Muslims.
Then there's the outright undisguised hostility towards Jews (let alone Israel), never more in display than during the Durban "Anti-Racism" Conferences in 2001.
But I don't need to burden you with the details. Pedro Sanjuan's The UN Gang and Dore Gold's Tower of Babble document all of the above in a more devastatingly effective manner than I ever could.
However, just when one thinks the UN can't outdo itself, comes this bit of news, courtesy of Michael Freund of the Jerusalem Post (forwarded from Naomi Ragen):
The war in Lebanon may have ended two years ago, but that hasn't stopped the UN from exploiting the conflict to besmirch Israel. In a move that harks back to the bad old days of UN hypocrisy and double standards vis-à-vis the Jewish state, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is reportedly set to demand that Israel reimburse Lebanon and Syria for damage caused during the war against Hizbullah.
Yes, you read that correctly. The UN wants Israel to pay for having the gall to defend itself.
I'm trying to weigh historical parallels. It seems Ban is trying to draw an analog between 2006 Israel and 1918 Germany (not too farfetched, as the Nazi analog has been bandied about by Israel's enemies almost since the birth of the Jewish state.)
I would venture a different parallel--Ban has taken a page from Hermann Goering's playbook. Here's a retelling of the aftermath of Kristallnacht:
Following Kristallnacht, on November 12, 1938, Hermann Goering called a meeting of the top Nazi leadership to assess the damage done during the night and place responsibility for it. Present at the meeting were Goering, Goebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, Walter Funk and other ranking Nazi officials. The intent of this meeting was two-fold: to make the Jews responsible for Kristallnacht and to use the events of the preceding days as a rationale for promulgating a series of antisemitic laws which would, in effect, remove Jews from the German economy. It was decided at the meeting that, since Jews were to blame for these events, they be held legally and financially responsible for the damages incurred by the pogrom. Accordingly, a "fine of 1 billion marks was levied for the slaying of Vom Rath, and 6 million marks paid by insurance companies for broken windows was to be given to the state coffers." (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kristallnacht.html)
Yes, it is spelled United Nazi-ons.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Patriots, Pigs and Palin
In the two days since I just pulled the ideology of "acquisitionism" from various nether regions, a number of things have happened that have served to simultaneously buttress my theories send me in search of further refinement.
As I said at the close of my last post, a key element of "acquisitionism", or at least its most salient American characteristic, is that you can't win unless someone else loses. In other words, the real final American frontier is schadenfreude.
As a Jet fan, I am experiencing this in spades right now with the season-ending injury to Patriot superstar Tom Brady. Curt Schilling was right on the money when he said that New York fans were practically salivating over this.
(It isn't so much that I was praying for Brady to get hurt (though, while watching Sunday's Jets-Miami game, I was waiting for some Jet defender to send Chad Pennington back to the operating table, and during Dan Marino's playing days, I openly rooted for someone to take him out), but since the Jets have certainly experienced more than their fair share of season-killing injuries, and since possibly the biggest such incident in recent history occurred in a game against the Pats (Vinny Testaverde in 1999), there seems to be some element of Divine payback at work here.)
I think that Americans like to see anyone doing better than they are taken down in the most publicly humiliating manner possible. This is as obvious by-product of our cleberity-driven culture, but a particularly vicious brand of schadenfreude is the current fulcrum of our political system. As I have described, this for the most part has fueled the Right's Clinton-hatred, and the Left's current Bush-hatred, more than any real policy differences.
I've also mentioned that in the current political climate, the Right adopted these attitudes as their electoral and governing strategy, and it worked for them for more than a decade, before ostensibly blowing up in their face.
Well, there seems to have been a much quicker turnaround than I had anticipated. The nomination of Sarah Palin has brought out the Left's most vicious attack-dog tactics, and they all seem to be backfiring. One can say that the Democrats have now suffered from their "acquisitionist" impulses twice in the same election cycle: first, when Hillary did not get the "coronation" she has been expecting and felt she was entitled to, and now Obama, whose anointment as the Left's messiah has been put on hold.
Not only that, but by making him fight the race-gender battle all over again, and this time truly across ideological lines, Palin has served to pull the rug out from what supposed to be his historical moment. Which is why he had to know better than to make his pig lipstick comment: even if he didn't intend it as a slap at Palin--which I believe is possible--he had to know that this was going to come back to bite him in the ass very quickly. Palin has knocked him off his pedestal, but more importantly for the Republicans, she's changed the game.
In theory, Palin should be more careful, because all this proves that payback is always imminent; if you climb on a pedestal, particularly if constructed upon religious platitudes, people are really going to enjoy watching you getting knocked down, if they can't manage to do it themselves. However, I think given that she has truly bared herself fully on a personal, if not political, level, the Left's attempts to score political points by pinning the "bridge to nowhere" on her are, well, a bridge to nowhere.
Hillary just wore pants. Palin is the real deal.
As I said at the close of my last post, a key element of "acquisitionism", or at least its most salient American characteristic, is that you can't win unless someone else loses. In other words, the real final American frontier is schadenfreude.
As a Jet fan, I am experiencing this in spades right now with the season-ending injury to Patriot superstar Tom Brady. Curt Schilling was right on the money when he said that New York fans were practically salivating over this.
(It isn't so much that I was praying for Brady to get hurt (though, while watching Sunday's Jets-Miami game, I was waiting for some Jet defender to send Chad Pennington back to the operating table, and during Dan Marino's playing days, I openly rooted for someone to take him out), but since the Jets have certainly experienced more than their fair share of season-killing injuries, and since possibly the biggest such incident in recent history occurred in a game against the Pats (Vinny Testaverde in 1999), there seems to be some element of Divine payback at work here.)
I think that Americans like to see anyone doing better than they are taken down in the most publicly humiliating manner possible. This is as obvious by-product of our cleberity-driven culture, but a particularly vicious brand of schadenfreude is the current fulcrum of our political system. As I have described, this for the most part has fueled the Right's Clinton-hatred, and the Left's current Bush-hatred, more than any real policy differences.
I've also mentioned that in the current political climate, the Right adopted these attitudes as their electoral and governing strategy, and it worked for them for more than a decade, before ostensibly blowing up in their face.
Well, there seems to have been a much quicker turnaround than I had anticipated. The nomination of Sarah Palin has brought out the Left's most vicious attack-dog tactics, and they all seem to be backfiring. One can say that the Democrats have now suffered from their "acquisitionist" impulses twice in the same election cycle: first, when Hillary did not get the "coronation" she has been expecting and felt she was entitled to, and now Obama, whose anointment as the Left's messiah has been put on hold.
Not only that, but by making him fight the race-gender battle all over again, and this time truly across ideological lines, Palin has served to pull the rug out from what supposed to be his historical moment. Which is why he had to know better than to make his pig lipstick comment: even if he didn't intend it as a slap at Palin--which I believe is possible--he had to know that this was going to come back to bite him in the ass very quickly. Palin has knocked him off his pedestal, but more importantly for the Republicans, she's changed the game.
In theory, Palin should be more careful, because all this proves that payback is always imminent; if you climb on a pedestal, particularly if constructed upon religious platitudes, people are really going to enjoy watching you getting knocked down, if they can't manage to do it themselves. However, I think given that she has truly bared herself fully on a personal, if not political, level, the Left's attempts to score political points by pinning the "bridge to nowhere" on her are, well, a bridge to nowhere.
Hillary just wore pants. Palin is the real deal.
Monday, September 8, 2008
American Socialism: Acquisitionism
The Cognitive Dissident is not very financially or economically savvy. His parents worked hard and saved so that he wouldn’t have to. So he doesn’t.
As far as economics are concerned, it seems to me that the true meaning of supply and demand is that wherever there’s a supply, I demand to get a hand in it.
The news surrounding the government’s bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac basically underscores this general attitude of entitlement that seems to pervade American political and socio-economic culture. In other words, people don’t just have a right to a roof over their heads: they have a right to OWN the roof and everything under it, even before it is even close to being paid for.
In this sense, it seems that American has gone even one step beyond baseline socialism. One might say that it is a distorted analog to Manifest Destiny: when we ran out of frontiers to conquer, we turned to our own backyards. Instead of capitalism, we might call it acquisitionism.
This acquisitionist position has extended to two very important social goods: health care and education. The existence of a system of public education is predicated on the notion that a basic “free, appropriate” education should be available to all. The systems of “socialized” medicine that exists in much of Europe applies the same notion to health care.
From the little I know about economics, by designating health care and education as “rights”, by extension it means that demand is infinite, which means that supply will never catch up. More importantly, it also means that someone will always be compelled to pay for someone else’s goods.
Aside from the blurry billing, there’s the issue of ostensible “moral hazard”. The lines have always been drawn between progressives’ complaints of “corporate welfare” (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, S & L, airlines, bailouts, tax cuts for the rich) and conservatives’ fears of creeping socialized just-about anything (higher taxes, education, health care, welfare, “war on poverty”). Don’t be fooled: the American Left is just as acquisitionist as the American Right.
The lesson of all this? Unless you find yourself as a real outlier on the great American socio-economic bell curve, you will probably be getting an output somewhat proportional to your input. There are just two things you wont be able to do: one, discern a necessarily direct connection between your efforts and rewards; and two, control who may benefit as a result of your efforts.
Ultimately, the latter is probably the unique defining characteristic of American “socialism”. In capitalism, you have to invest. In acquisitionism, you get someone else to. You can’t win unless someone else loses.
That is the acquisitionist ethos.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Republi-Karma Redux
The McCain campaign just can’t get a break.
The selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate was an inspired choice, to be sure. The announcement coming so soon after the Investiture at Invesco also showed that the McCainiacs don’t lack for a sense of timing; it may have served to blunt the effects of any post-convention bounce.
However, in the current political climate, the familial baggage attached to Palin has only magnified the target on her back, however unjustified the attacks are.
Personally, I would venture that the fact that she has been so successful while dealing with such family difficulty should resonate with most Americans, who may actually be more likely to have familial difficulties unlike hers without the personal success she has experienced. For some reason, that doesn’t seem to be happening.
As if the announcement of Bristol Palin’s travails weren’t enough to disrupt what might have been inspired timing, Hurricane Gustav made landfall to remind everyone of this administration’s biggest failure and the actual turning point in its political fortune.
Additionally, the Pentagon has—quietly—traded “Global War on Terror” for “Long War Against Violent Extremist Movements.” In other words, somebody finally dispensed with “Mission Accomplished” as a battle plan and consequently pulled the rug out from under this administration’s raison d’etre. Even such a conservative eminence grise as Rich Lowry now characterizes this administration as having “w[on] a disputed election and botch[ed] a foreign occupation” (in yesterday’s New York Post).
Ironically, the conservatives had been complaining all along that American military successes were never reported; now even they can’t stand the good tidings. An anonymous operative on the Republican convention floor was reported as having said the best thing about the convention was that it would be over soon. Conservatives can only wish the same could be true about a policy nightmare largely of their own making.
On a tangential note, I wrote in these pages (“Prime Time Prognosis: Fertile”, July 21) that maybe a new, more effective model of related social services would result from a seeming spate of very public pop-culture pregnancies.
Irrespective of the political fallout resulting from Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, this may finally be where that tipping point occurs, because it shows that it can happen in an otherwise upstanding, stable, even religious family.
Someone must be paying attention.
The selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate was an inspired choice, to be sure. The announcement coming so soon after the Investiture at Invesco also showed that the McCainiacs don’t lack for a sense of timing; it may have served to blunt the effects of any post-convention bounce.
However, in the current political climate, the familial baggage attached to Palin has only magnified the target on her back, however unjustified the attacks are.
Personally, I would venture that the fact that she has been so successful while dealing with such family difficulty should resonate with most Americans, who may actually be more likely to have familial difficulties unlike hers without the personal success she has experienced. For some reason, that doesn’t seem to be happening.
As if the announcement of Bristol Palin’s travails weren’t enough to disrupt what might have been inspired timing, Hurricane Gustav made landfall to remind everyone of this administration’s biggest failure and the actual turning point in its political fortune.
Additionally, the Pentagon has—quietly—traded “Global War on Terror” for “Long War Against Violent Extremist Movements.” In other words, somebody finally dispensed with “Mission Accomplished” as a battle plan and consequently pulled the rug out from under this administration’s raison d’etre. Even such a conservative eminence grise as Rich Lowry now characterizes this administration as having “w[on] a disputed election and botch[ed] a foreign occupation” (in yesterday’s New York Post).
Ironically, the conservatives had been complaining all along that American military successes were never reported; now even they can’t stand the good tidings. An anonymous operative on the Republican convention floor was reported as having said the best thing about the convention was that it would be over soon. Conservatives can only wish the same could be true about a policy nightmare largely of their own making.
On a tangential note, I wrote in these pages (“Prime Time Prognosis: Fertile”, July 21) that maybe a new, more effective model of related social services would result from a seeming spate of very public pop-culture pregnancies.
Irrespective of the political fallout resulting from Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, this may finally be where that tipping point occurs, because it shows that it can happen in an otherwise upstanding, stable, even religious family.
Someone must be paying attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)